London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

R.38 It is recommended that consideration should be given in London to the way in which
data on commercial and industrial waste arisings and the wastes handled – by customer
type, customer size, and waste composition, could be obtained on a regular basis.
R.39 It is recommended that consideration should be given to what extent the use of LPG
and battery operated vehicles by waste collection authorities would be beneficial, and
how such a change could be implemented.
R.40 It is recommended that consideration should be given as to whether certain types of
service provision by waste collection authorities are more advantageous than others,
and, if so, how can additional support or information be given to such authorities in this
regard.
R.41 It is recommended that the GLA in conjunction with all London Boroughs should lobby
Government to enable sufficient commercial waste facilities to be provided to handle
London’s wider wastes (for example by adopting a similar approach to that of
Copenhagen where the municipality has responsibility for the management of all
commercial waste, including C&D waste, and sets criteria for the transport and
treatment of each waste type; only those facilities and operations that meet the criteria
can enter into a contract with the authorities to become designated waste management
facilities and operators).
R.42 In order to facilitate the provision of waste management facilities to serve London’s
needs, it is recommended that suitable sites for a full range of facilities (ie. not just
strategic facilities) are identified in Waste Local Plans in the light of consultation with
the Regional Technical Advisory Board (RTAB).
R.43 It is recommended an assessment is made of whether the use of environmental
management systems (EMS) and quality management systems (QMS) by local
authorities is likely to bring benefits with regard to sustainable waste management and,
if so, to consider whether the provision of additional support to the authorities would be
useful in this regard.
Recommendations: Construction and Demolition Wastes
R.44 It is recommended that the GLA make it clear that the arisings of ‘hard’ and excavated’
construction and demolition wastes in London may be considerably different to the
figure of 6.05 million tonnes that is often quoted from the Symonds’ surveys of 2001
and 2002 and subsequently used as the basis for further analysis. Such analyses should
recognise that the Symonds’ survey data should be used as a range (3.70-8.40 million
tonnes), with the associated confidence level, and acknowledge the potential for
significant uncertainty in the modelling results. An appropriate contingency should be
included within any strategy measures based on the data modelling to allow for a
significantly greater, or indeed lesser, quantity.
R.45 It should be made clear that ‘soft’ C&D wastes (eg. timber, plastics, metals, packaging,
plaster) are excluded from the Symonds’ survey data estimates, and future planning /
modelling should take steps to (a) allow for this in any future waste modelling analyses,
e.g. to inform the development of the London Plan, and (b) obtain data on the size and
composition of this waste stream.
R.46 It is recommended that the lack of reliable composition data is particularly taken into
account in light of the level of uncertainty of the Symonds survey data estimates for
London. Consideration should be given to commissioning a detailed survey of
construction and demolition wastes in London that would include (a) the separate
133